• 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!

#3 KJV-Onlyism Commentary

Clint Kritzer

Active Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Will J. Kinney:
Another common criticism of the King James Bible bites the dust.


The alleged error.

A professed Christian posts this alleged error over at the Baptist Board.
Ah, Will, you wrote an essay about me? I'm honored! Did you think by not putting my name on this post I would not respond?


Hebrews 6 - Verse 6. If they shall fall away

"And having fallen away". I can express my own mind on this translation nearly in the words of Dr. Macknight: "The participles , who were enlightened, , have tasted, and , were made partakers, being aorists, are properly rendered by our translators in the past time; wherefore, [Greek omitted], being an aorist, ought likewise to have been translated in the past time, "HAVE fallen away". Nevertheless, our translators, following Beza, who without any authority from ancient MSS. has inserted in his version the word si, if, have rendered this clause, IF they fall away, that this text might not appear to contradict the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. But as no translator should take upon him to add to or alter the Scriptures, for the sake of any favourite doctrine, I have translated [Greek omitted] in the past time, have fallen away, according to the true import of the word, as standing in connection with the other aorists in the preceding verses."
Will, Will, Will. You did not indicate the source of the quote. I did when I posted it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2805.html#000008

(By the way, the source is Adam Clarke)

First of all, the allegation that the KJB translators got their translation of "IF they shall fall away" from Beza's Greek text, without any authority from ancient manuscripts, is pure baloney. This "scholar" has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. ALL the Greek texts read the same in this passage. It is not a question of which text is followed, as he erroneously claims, but rather of how to translate it.
I am not really the scholar but I take it that you DO know how to translate it? I think the Greek students here are having some difficulty already with some of your assertions about Greek translation. BTW, do you have any MSS evidence to offer on the subject?

Secondly, the man has only voiced his own peculiar opinion as to how the aorist should be translated. ALL major versions I am aware of frequently translate the aorist tense just as it is found in the King James Bible. Many others of equal or superior education would disagree with this man about what "the true import of the word" really is.
Not my opinion, Adam Clarke's citing Dr. MacKnight's.

This Bible corrector is just another puffed up, self-appointed critic who has no Bible anywhere on this earth that he considers to be the inerrant word of God.
Me or Adam Clarke? Well, either way, it's okay that you feel that way.


The Conditional Participle...
Ah, the pontification begins!

It is amusing to see how every man thinks he is an expert in Greek when it comes to criticizing the King James Bible. Anytime someone says: "All scholars agree that...." you should immediately know that the guy has no idea what he is talking about. All scholars do not agree on anything, and to say they do, is to be ignorant of the facts.
Who said that, Will? Certainly not me. Back it up with a link if you think I did. We check your sources everywhere else. Don't think you'll get away with that here on the same board!

Well, enough on that. I'll check behind you on your quotes after dinner. I wonder if I'll find any taken out of context?

Bible versions that render Hebrews 6:6 as "IF they shall fall away" are: Coverdale 1535, Geneva 1599, Webster's 1833, KJB, RSV 1952, the 2003 ESV (English Standard Version), Third Millenium Bible, New Life Bible, The Message, NKJV 1982 and the 1984 NIV.
Again, "these Bibles are totally authoritative when they agree with the KJV. They are trash when they do not!" You're too much sometimes.

I believe God has given him over to a reprobate mind, as far as the Bible version issue is concerned.
Why? Because I point out your errors in logic and cite credible sources? Because I hold you accountable for your allegations?

We who believe God has been faithful to keep His promises to preserve His inerrant words rejoice at having them in our beloved King James Holy Bible. As our blessed Lord said so many times: "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Will Kinney
"...but NEVER answer questions that will comprimise your position!"


http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/2805.html#000009
 

Clint Kritzer

Active Member
Site Supporter
Will! You asked me for a translation last time you posted (directly by name) to me and I told you "Young's Literal"! Why did you not cite it?
 

Clint Kritzer

Active Member
Site Supporter
Will, your hit and run posting may be good for you, but you should really cite links on the other boards you go to when referring to this thread, although it is really no surprise you don't since you never cite sources here either. I suppose you do not wish anyone to see the rebuttals that come back to you.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/message/17057

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/whichversion/message/17056

When you cut and post quotes from this site onto another site, you must post a link. That is why we have the clause in the user agreement that states:
You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by BaptistBoard.com. We will delete posts that contain copyrighted material not owned by you unless you have permission to post them there. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless BaptistBoard.com, the owners of this site and their agents with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your message(s) or any other interaction on these forums. The contents of the BaptistBoard.com are intended for the personal, noncommercial use of its users. All materials published on BaptistBoard.com (including, but not limited to, feature articles, photographs, images, illustrations, audio clips and video clips, also known as "The Content") are protected by copyright, and owned or controlled by BaptistBoard.com, or the party credited as the provider of the content, software or other materials. You shall abide by all additional copyright notices, information or restrictions contained in any Content accessed through the web site. BaptistBoard.com is protected by copyright as a collective work and/or compilation, pursuant to U.S. copyright laws, international conventions and other copyright laws. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display or in any way exploit any of the Content, software, materials or Service in whole or in part. You may download or copy the Content and other downloadable items displayed on this web site for personal use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained in such Content. Copying or storing any Content for other than personal, noncommercial use is expressly prohibited without the prior written permission from BaptistBoard.com or the copyright holder identified in the individual Content's copyright notice. If you are an owner of intellectual property who believes their intellectual property has been improperly posted or distributed via this web site, please notify the webmaster immediately.
If you do not abide by this agreement, you can get the other board in trouble. In this particular case, it is the law that demands credibility from you.
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by altalux:
http://floydjones.org/which.pdf
Thank you! It is excellent.
thumbs.gif
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
Why were you soooo quick to ignore this:


--------------------------------------------------
Article One:Of The Scriptures
We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired;that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter;and therefore is,and shall remain to the end of the age,the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct,creeds,and opinions should be tried.

--------------------------------------------------


Cannot have the final revelation of the will of God to man (this includes me, you and everyone else), nor the conduct, creeds, without the error free scriptures to which opinions should also be tried.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Would you mind proving which version is the "error free scriptures" Michelle?? We truly would be interested in knowing. Please, tell us how we use little of our brain if we don't agree with your position. :rolleyes:

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Article One:Of The Scriptures
We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired;that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter;and therefore is,and shall remain to the end of the age,the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct,creeds,and opinions should be tried.

--------------------------------------------------

I guess you also have the same problem Jason has - the inability to COMPREHEND.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle's continued ommission to the above:
inspired perfectly and without error only in the originals
Why do continue to bear false witness?
It seems that you have an inability to comprehend because you are stuck in a rut of KJV onlyism and cannot think beyond that rut.
DHK
</font>[/QUOTE]I believe this is one reason she's moved to this forum. MOst of us in the Bible Versions forum called her on her doctrine, but she continued to insult and slam people with circular reasoning, questioning their salvation, their intelligence and their service to God or love for God because they didn't use the KJV ONLY. I've watched her attacks here now for a few days, and it's a pity. No evidence in the least to back up the theory that KJV Onlyism is correct.

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by gb93433:
Anyone seen a unicorn yet? Maybe that could be a rhino instead. But of course that would ruin the KJVO theory of translation.
Shhhh.....Don't tell them this. It might make them realize that something is wrong, and they don't want to know that. ;)

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
DHX,

Your personal interpretation of what the Hebrew word for rhinocerous, or wild ox, is just that - your interpretation. The Hebrew word obviously was not descriptive enouph to render a specific animal, and that is why unicorn, in our language is the best, and most accurate rendering possible. This is most likely the reason the KJB translators used this word, as it is generic word meaning one-horned animal. Putting any specific animal in it's place could be wrong, and only one's interpretation. Please do not ruin the faith of others based upon your own interpretation of what this should be, and then falsely claim that this word is in error- when indeed it is NOT.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle, you have posted nothing more than your "opinion" on other threads in other parts of this forum designed to denegrate anothers faith and belittle them. Please, don't lecture anyone on how to conduct themselves until you can follow your own commandments. Unicorn to many of todays readers (not those of the Elizabethan English age) is the mythical character. So, it was a bad choice of words for the KJV translators to use. They could have just as easily used "one horned beast", yet they did not. Strange how with the continued daily evolution of the English language, unicorn doesn't just mean a one horned beast in many's minds.

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
Larry,

Take a look at this:


&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;The KJB is the infallible and inerrant words of God/scriptures in our English language. What about this do you not understand? Just because you personally disagree with the word choice, does in no way constitute these words are in error. No one has proved that yet, and no one ever will, because the truth cannot be proven wrong.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle, would you mind showing us which version of the kjVERSION is the infallible, inerrant Word of God in the English language. Was it the 1611 Version or the 1762, 1769 or one of the other updates of it? Also which version of the version is correct and infallible, the Cambridge or the Oxford? The word choices are an integral part of infallibility, so, please, prove your point.

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
I see you are following in the pattern of the cults; using the scriptures as weapons to hurt people who don't believe like you regarding non-essentials, in fact, trying to make them seem as essentials.

--------------------------------------------------


Jason,

If this is true, then why then did you do this very same thing in your round 7? Were you trying to hurt others? I think that you indeed were, but your accusation of art is false. As you called me, and many others cultists, foolish, uneducated, blind faith, etc. All these names however, are very untrue and quite slandering. How is it Jason, that you think you are serving others? How is it that your last round was edifying and glorifying our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ? I find that your last round has proved how very wrong you are, and how much you boast and brag about yourself and how much you have placed the wisdom of your own mind above that of faith, and hopefully the faith of many other christians will not have been affected by your false claims.


1 Cor. 1

10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15. Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31. That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
You say others have questioned you just as you have questioned many of us in the other forums here, Michelle. You have called many of my brethren who use MV's uneducated, questioned their salvation and love of God, their intelligence and comprehending power, etc., and yet you get huffy when someone does the same to you, crying foul and screaming out "slander". Think of just how cutting your words are. Your long quote of scripture proved absolutely nothing but your inability to prove your point. It is typical of many KJVO's to do this to try and deflect. How are Jason's claims any more false here than yours are here and on the other forums? Please, tell us. We'd like to know. :confused:

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
But, at some point, it seems we have to see a translation as scripture. While not evaluating his arguments themselves, to me, Will's most compelling point is to stress that the KJVO's, at least, have a book that they can point to as being God's Word, without qualifications.
--------------------------------------------------


Yes, and Baptists of the past also believed this, so this is not something foriegn, new, nor of false doctrine as many falsely claim:

http://www.pb.org/articles/mcfaith.html

http://www.pb.org/articles/lcf1689.htm#Chapter%20

http://www.ancbt.org/Beliefs/articles.pdf

http://carmichael/baptist.org/Articles%20of%20Faith/pcof1.htm

http://www.nationalbaptist.com/images/documents/z6.pdf


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle, none of these sites promote the KJV in any way, shape or fashion. Nor do they teach a single version only doctrine. I believe only one or two of the links worked at all. Truly, you need to study your position more thoroughly.

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Article One:Of The Scriptures
We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired;that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter;and therefore is,and shall remain to the end of the age,the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct,creeds,and opinions should be tried.

--------------------------------------------------

I guess you also have the same problem Jason has - the inability to COMPREHEND.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
See, you insult people and then cry foul if someone does the same to you. Hypocritical if you ask me. I think he comprehends quite well. At least he's not using the circular cultic reasoning of the Ruckmanism type. Nowhere do your posting show one version onlyism. It's sad you continue to hold to a position which has so clearly been pointed out to be false.

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
14.gif


How does one respond to that?
The same way most of us in the Bible Versions forum responded to it. We didn't let her question our ability to comprehend, especially since many of us DO use the KJV, but aren't KJVO.

AVL1984
 

michelle

New Member
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, you have posted nothing more than your "opinion" on other threads in other parts of this forum designed to denegrate anothers faith and belittle them. Please, don't lecture anyone on how to conduct themselves until you can follow your own commandments. Unicorn to many of todays readers (not those of the Elizabethan English age) is the mythical character. So, it was a bad choice of words for the KJV translators to use. They could have just as easily used "one horned beast", yet they did not. Strange how with the continued daily evolution of the English language, unicorn doesn't just mean a one horned beast in many's minds.

AVL1984
--------------------------------------------------


Maybe many unbelievers believe this to be true and do not believe in God, but christians DO NOT believe this myth, nor HAVE THEY EVER, for this is in THE SCRIPTURES! Please, stop trying to say the scriptures are in error, because you are perpetrating a lie.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, you have posted nothing more than your "opinion" on other threads in other parts of this forum designed to denegrate anothers faith and belittle them. Please, don't lecture anyone on how to conduct themselves until you can follow your own commandments. Unicorn to many of todays readers (not those of the Elizabethan English age) is the mythical character. So, it was a bad choice of words for the KJV translators to use. They could have just as easily used "one horned beast", yet they did not. Strange how with the continued daily evolution of the English language, unicorn doesn't just mean a one horned beast in many's minds.

AVL1984
--------------------------------------------------


Maybe many unbelievers believe this to be true and do not believe in God, but christians DO NOT believe this myth, nor HAVE THEY EVER, for this is in THE SCRIPTURES! Please, stop trying to say the scriptures are in error, because you are perpetrating a lie.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle, you are using circular reasoning again, not even addressing the issue. Try again, dear. I have not stated the scriptures are in error. I stated that the KJV translators made a bad choice of words. This is not the same. You are making false accusations, and you should be ashamed of yourself. :( I noticed you still have not answered the question about which version of the KJV was the inerrant, perfect Word of God.

AVL1984
 

michelle

New Member
--------------------------------------------------
You say others have questioned you just as you have questioned many of us in the other forums here, Michelle. You have called many of my brethren who use MV's uneducated, questioned their salvation and love of God, their intelligence and comprehending power, etc., and yet you get huffy when someone does the same to you, crying foul and screaming out "slander". Think of just how cutting your words are.
--------------------------------------------------


I have never done this in the above bold, and this is a false accusation of me, brother.


--------------------------------------------------
Your long quote of scripture proved absolutely nothing but your inability to prove your point. It is typical of many KJVO's to do this to try and deflect. How are Jason's claims any more false here than yours are here and on the other forums? Please, tell us. We'd like to know.
--------------------------------------------------


This is your own opinion. You have never proven that any scriptural reference/support that I have given is indeed irrelevant and unable to support my position/points. Your own words and opinions come easy, and how nice it is for others to say such things, without scriptural support for their opposition of it, and to claim such as the above.
Just cause YOU say it is so, doesn't mean it is so, unless you can show otherwise - to which you have not.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 

artbook1611

New Member
Av1984
What are you doing,spamming the board?

Before this debate began, I thought that many KJO were slightly rude and needed a lesson in humility.But after following this debate commentary, they are pussycats compared to many of the anti- KJO proponents here at the Baptist Board.
Its a waste of time trying to communicate with many of you, everything turns into an argument and the Lord is not glorified in this sesspool of KJO hatred.
 

michelle

New Member
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, none of these sites promote the KJV in any way, shape or fashion. Nor do they teach a single version only doctrine. I believe only one or two of the links worked at all. Truly, you need to study your position more thoroughly.

AVL1984
--------------------------------------------------


Seems many on these boards are having quite a difficult time, comprehending such as simple truth as this, all because they are stuck on a false, man made label that has been slapped onto on the truth. Just a word of advice: Try taking off the label of "king James Bible" and look at what is within, from Genesis 1 - Revelation 22:21. These are the scriptures, and have been and always will be in our English language. If you fight this, you are only fighting the truth, no matter what "label" you decide to slap onto it, in order to AVOID this truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
You say others have questioned you just as you have questioned many of us in the other forums here, Michelle. You have called many of my brethren who use MV's uneducated, questioned their salvation and love of God, their intelligence and comprehending power, etc., and yet you get huffy when someone does the same to you, crying foul and screaming out "slander". Think of just how cutting your words are.
--------------------------------------------------


I have never done this in the above bold, and this is a false accusation of me, brother.


--------------------------------------------------
Your long quote of scripture proved absolutely nothing but your inability to prove your point. It is typical of many KJVO's to do this to try and deflect. How are Jason's claims any more false here than yours are here and on the other forums? Please, tell us. We'd like to know.
--------------------------------------------------


This is your own opinion. You have never proven that any scriptural reference/support that I have given is indeed irrelevant and unable to support my position/points. Your own words and opinions come easy, and how nice it is for others to say such things, without scriptural support for their opposition of it, and to claim such as the above.
Just cause YOU say it is so, doesn't mean it is so, unless you can show otherwise - to which you have not.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle, the Bible Versions forum is full of your insults and questioning of intelligence of others. There are a few here, too, questioning people intelligence or ability to comprehend. Remember, Michelle, just because YOU say it's so doesn't make it so either. You've posted NO PROOF of the Bible supporting one version only over the others. And you still avoid the question asked by several here and on the Bible Versions forum.

AVL1984
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Originally posted by artbook1611:
Av1984
What are you doing,spamming the board?

Before this debate began, I thought that many KJO were slightly rude and needed a lesson in humility.But after following this debate commentary, they are pussycats compared to many of the anti- KJO proponents here at the Baptist Board.
Its a waste of time trying to communicate with many of you, everything turns into an argument and the Lord is not glorified in this sesspool of KJO hatred.
Believe me, Artbook, I don't hate the KJV, and I never will. In fact, it is my version of choice. I do not advocate KJVO doctrine, though, as there is no scriptural evidence to back up a one version only "doctrine". I'm not an apologist for the MV's, but I won't stand by and let someone denegrate them either, especially someone who uses circular reasoning, can't back up their posts with proof, and whines about being lied about when she attacks people all of the time. I don't have to spam the boards. I just came across this section last night and answered posts as I came across them. One can go to the Bible Versions forum and see that the person couldn't make her arguments and circular reasoning a go up there so she left and came here. Too bad so many KJVO's can dish out the venom, but cannot take it when KJV's (without the "O") and MV supporters answer. If they can't handle the heat, maybe they should stay out of the kitchen. :eek:

AVL1984
 
Top