10 Questions for KJVers

First of all I probably couldn't answer half of those questions and secondly last time I got into a discussion with you - trying to defend the Baptist on homosexual issues you bailed out and left the discussion because you felt you were causing division. I don't see how this will be any different.

 

Well like I said before, I cannot answer half of those questions and don't intend to. It is settled with me. Sorry, maybe others will join.

 

Round about what Thomas Cassidy said.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: CaffeineYellow5 ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Latin Vulgate was a poor translation of the word of God into Latin. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the "word of God"? Why or why not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If by "septuagint" you mean a Greek translation of the OT, then yes, there were several Greek translations of the word of God (OT) some more accurate than others. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. The above were, to varying degrees, pretty good English translations of the word of God. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Define "uncorrupted." <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Your question is based on a faulty premise. God did not inspire the KJV. The bible was already inspired when the KJV was translated. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambride, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The Cambridge and Oxford editions were edited by different men. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the context of Matt 5:18, define "jot", "tittle", and "law".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>A "jot" is an iota ( ι ) the 8th letter of the Greek alphabet. A "tittle" is a point of a letter. Jesus used it of the little lines or projections, by which the Hebrew letters in other respects similar differ from one another. "Law" refers to the OT in general, and often specifically to the portions of the Pentateuch dealing with the moral, civil, and ceremonial law, I.E., Leviticus and Deuteronomy. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Define "circular argument" and give an example.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The fallacy of circular argument, known as petitio principii ("begging the question"), occurs when the premises presume, openly or covertly, the very conclusion that is to be demonstrated (example: "Gregory always votes wisely." "But how do you know?" "Because he always votes Libertarian."). A special form of this fallacy, called a vicious circle, or circulus in probando ("arguing in a circle"), occurs in a course of reasoning typified by the complex argument in which a premise p1 is used to prove p2; p2 is used to prove p3; and so on, until pn - 1 is used to prove pn; then pn is subsequently used in a proof of p1, and the whole series p1, p2, . . . , pn is taken as established (example: "McKinley College's baseball team is the best in the association [pn = p3]; they are the best because of their strong batting potential [p2]; they have this potential because of the ability of Jones, Crawford, and Randolph at the bat [p1]." "But how do you know that Jones, Crawford, and Randolph are such good batters?" "Well, after all, these men are the backbone of the best team in the association [p3 again]."). Strictly speaking, petitio principii is not a fallacy of reasoning but an ineptitude in argumentation: thus the argument from p as a premise to p as conclusion is not deductively invalid but lacks any power of conviction, since no one who questioned the conclusion could concede the premise. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The fact that the bible is true and infallible, does not suggest that my understanding of English or any other language is infallible. That seems self evident! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Suppose you lived in the 10th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The same way I define preservation today. God has preserved His word. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority" in 1610 and prior? Explain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In English, the word of God was respresented by Tyndale, Matthews, Cranmer, Bishop's, Great, and the Geneva Bible. It was, as always, represented in Hebrew by the Masoretic text and in Greek by the Byzantine textform.

[ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paynedaniel:
I think I was in error when I bailed out of the homosexuality debate. I will not do that again.

Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you getting out of the debate made the debate better! It was your posts that were erroneous

 

Those questions were so easy, think I'll let Dr. Cassidy answer them.

 

We've had a similar topic in the past and I answered, but I'll not take the time here. If I can find them, I will copy and repost, although you might not be interested since I wouldn't meet your definition of a KJV-only, though I only use the KJV. But I actually slipped in here for this: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think I was in error when I bailed out of the homosexuality debate. I will not do that again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Come on back. There are several answers you owe us.

 

&gt;&gt; The Latin Vulgate was a poor translation of the word of God into Latin.

but is it the very Word of God? yes/no

 

daniel said:
Dr. Cassidy is not a KJV only person according to his answers, so I guess you'll have to get someone else to speak for you.

lighten up there dude, i think dr. cassidy is more of a kjv person than you might think by reading other post, please correct me if i'm wrong dr. cassidy.
as for someone to speak for me he did a great job don't ya think

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ddavis:
i think dr. cassidy is more of a kjv person than you might think by reading other post, please correct me if i'm wrong dr. cassidy.
as for someone to speak for me he did a great job don't ya think <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am KJV but not KJVO. I believe the KJV is a superior translation of superior underlying texts using a superior philosophy of translation. However, I also realize there are other worthy translations in other languages, and even in English. I will defend the KJV against all those who make charges of error, etc., just as I would defend any bible against charges of error. However, my defense is much like Spurgeon stated, "I would defend the bible just as I would defend a lion. I would open the cage and let it loose!" I agree. The bible can take care of itself!

 

THANK YOU.

 

DP: Since I've become interested in the KJV-only debate, I have been involved in many discussions with those supporting the KJV-only position. I have often asked questions that rarely or never even get a response, or when they do, the answers don't make sense in light of KJV-onlyism.

These are simple questions. An essay does not need to be written in response for any of them.

If you are KJV-only try your hand at answering the following questions, and send your answers to the discussion board. If you answer the following questions convincingly (so that they are both true and do not contradict KJV-onlyism), you win a prize.

If you are not KJV-only, try asking some of these questions to KJV-only supporters that you run into. And don't let them change the subject.

Gina: That was quite the sarcastic little post, and in such spirit, will be the replies. When you feel the need to be a little respectful and talk to people as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, perhaps then you will get more responses. I for one would be happy to discuss the issue, without the attitude.
Please try again.
da Gina

 

Alrighty then. I'm not very good at these things, but since I'm KJVO I'll give it a shot.


1. DP: Is/was the Latin Vulgate the "word of God"? Why or why not?

Gina: It comes from questionable sources. See answer to #2 also.


2. DP: Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the "word of God"? Why or why not?

Gina: There's not even any evidence FOR the LXX in earlier years. Most scholars will readily admit the many mistakes and difficulties in trying to even sort out what was the LXX to start with. A totally corrupted text. It can't be properly reconstructed.


3. DP: Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthew's, Tyndale's, etc. the "word of God"? Why or why not?

Gina: Name which of these were BOTH completed and totally from the correct source. Some great work, but the KJV was the only one to be completed and from the correct source by people with the knowledge and ability to do it.

4. DP: Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God.)

Gina: I don't get it when people don't understand the difference between a translational and a printing error. Major difference. Going on your logic, it also wouldn't have been the work of God if the printer would have run out of ink mid-page.


5. DP: Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambride, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words?

Gina: Define the difference between slightly and occasionally.

6. In the context of Matt 5:18, define "jot", "tittle", and "law".

Gina: The law was being fulfilled, not destroyed, and Jesus was saying not one thing would change in regards to what that was.

7. Define "circular argument" and give an example.

Gina: Answering a question with a question that really won't get either person anywhere. See question number 5. It's what I do when I'm not sure what to say.

8. When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a "contradiction", why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible?

Gina: Because I do not possess perfect knowledge, nor does anyone else. The same question could be asked of any translation. You don't understand something, you do whatever you're capable of to learn more.

9. Suppose you lived in the 10th century. How would you define "preservation" as it related to God's word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position?

Gina: The same way I describe it now. What would be the difference?

10. DP: AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE BIG QUESTION:
The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the "final authority" in 1610 and prior? Explain.

Gina: The exact same place it is now. In God.
If by that you meant the eternal question "Where was the KJV before 1611", your answer is that no translations in English were allowed for most of that time. So it remained only in the Byazantine and Masoretic texts until the translation was allowed to take place.