A very silly KJVO argument...

[robycop3]

On another board, some not-too-bright KJVOs are advancing the argument that newer versions are part of the "Genesis 3; Yea, hath God said..." corruption. Let us see just how SILLY their argument is!

First, they quote Genesis 2:16 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Then they quoteGen 3:3 "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

Then they say Eve altered God's words, and man has been doing it ever since.

BUT...........

Can they *PROVE* Eve altered God's words to her? ABSOLUTELY NOT! First, Gen. 2:16-17 quotes God's words to ADAM before he made Eve. Second, God did NOT cite Eve for ALTERING His words, but for DISOBEYING them. therefore, we MUST assume Eve CORRECTLY quoted God's words to Sneaky Snake. I'm sure he also knew what God had said to her, and his "Yea, hath God said" was a rhetorical question. Remember, he did NOT try to alter God's words; he denied their VERACITY.

Thus, common sense shows this KJVO argument to be utterly without merit, same as all their others.

 

[Baptist4life]

On another board, some not-too-bright KJVOs are advancing the argument that newer versions are part of the "Genesis 3; Yea, hath God said..." corruption. Let us see just how SILLY their argument is!

First, they quote Genesis 2:16 "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Then they quoteGen 3:3 "But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

Then they say Eve altered God's words, and man has been doing it ever since.

BUT...........

Can they *PROVE* Eve altered God's words to her? ABSOLUTELY NOT! First, Gen. 2:16-17 quotes God's words to ADAM before he made Eve. Second, God did NOT cite Eve for ALTERING His words, but for DISOBEYING them. therefore, we MUST assume Eve CORRECTLY quoted God's words to Sneaky Snake. I'm sure he also knew what God had said to her, and his "Yea, hath God said" was a rhetorical question. Remember, he did NOT try to alter God's words; he denied their VERACITY.

Thus, common sense shows this KJVO argument to be utterly without merit, same as all their others.

I understand your position on the KJVO topic, but this post is pretty ridiculous.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This seems like a pretty long stretch just to be critical of a position. Plenty of flaws in any 'one version onlyism' without going to this extent.

 

[robycop3]

I understand your position on the KJVO topic, but this post is pretty ridiculous.

Don't see why; "I" didn't invent that stuff - some KJVOs did, and actually tryta USE it.

 

[robycop3]

This seems like a pretty long stretch just to be critical of a position. Plenty of flaws in any 'one version onlyism' without going to this extent.

I just wanted to call attention to some of the ridiculous lengths that some folx go in trying to defend their man-made doctrine.

 

[Winman]

Can they *PROVE* Eve altered God's words to her? ABSOLUTELY NOT! First, Gen. 2:16-17 quotes God's words to ADAM before he made Eve. Second, God did NOT cite Eve for ALTERING His words, but for DISOBEYING them. therefore, we MUST assume Eve CORRECTLY quoted God's words to Sneaky Snake. I'm sure he also knew what God had said to her, and his "Yea, hath God said" was a rhetorical question. Remember, he did NOT try to alter God's words; he denied their VERACITY.

Well, you've defeated your own counter-argument by admitting it is based on assumption.

I don't especially like the argument they made, but they do have the fact on their side that what Eve quoted was not the exact same words we have God telling Adam. The fact is, we do not know where Eve got her knowledge, from God speaking to her, or being taught from Adam.

A better argument is that Satan (the serpent) altered God's word by adding the one word "not".

God said, "thou shalt surely die" (Gen 2:17)

Satan said, "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen 3:4)

I don't think changing "thou" to "ye" is an issue, but Satan added the word "not" which absolutely changed the meaning of what God said.

And when Satan tempted Christ he took away from God's word. When he tempted Christ about leaping off the temple he said:

Matt 4: 6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Here Satan quoted Psalms 91:11-12, but he cleverly left out a portion of verse 11 which I will highlight.

Psa 91:11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.

As you see, Satan left out the words "to keep thee in all thy ways". Why is that important? Because God's promise to safely protect a person only extends to a person who is doing God's will. If God tells you to jump off a temple and promises to keep you from getting killed, then God would send angels to catch you.

However, if you take it upon yourself presumptuously to perform some act that God did not command you, or an act that is known to be against his will, then there is no promise of protection.

Because the Father had not commanded Jesus to leap off the temple, and because that was not not his will for Jesus, there was no protection promised him. Satan knew this and thought he could fool Jesus into jumping off the temple killing himself.

Now, these are two examples of altering God's word, once by adding to his word, the second time from subtracting from God's word. God gave a severe warning in Revelations to anyone who adds or takes away from his word.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I don't know about you, but those are very scary warnings to me. And these verses are a strong argument for preservation, as how could any man possibly know if he has added or subtracted from God's word unless the accurate and correct words are not known and can be identified? They can't. So, these verses strongly imply God's accurate word can be known and identified.

One reason I will not read the MVs is because it is a fact that many verses have been taken out of the scriptures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

on a more superficial level, it's obvious that KJBOists are the very ones going around to people reading non-KJB Bibles and insinuating, "Yea hath God said."

non-KJBOs accept the KJB as God's Word. but the KJBOs question our Bibles.

so the irony's far more facile than first presented.

 

[Cutter]

on a more superficial level, it's obvious that KJBOists are the very ones going around to people reading non-KJB Bibles and insinuating, "Yea hath God said."

I guess I am the exception to your rule. I have never read from the other "bibles," and I have been a Christian 35 years. The way that the [we do not attack our brother and sisters in Christ based on which translation they choose to read or study] Baptists continue to malign people that only read and study the KJV makes it appear that they are jealous of our ability to be grounded in One Book that represents to us the Word of God. :laugh:

Note: If you have specific facts you wish to convey regarding the subject, that is fine, but I would not call you an insulting name as part of my debate regarding the SUBJECT MATTER only and to make this very clear, you have crossed the line by calling other
Christians bad names including myself since the KJV is probably my least read
Bible. We could argue all day on whether or not a 300 AD document is more accurate than a 1400 AD document, but I wouldn[t call you senile if you were not in agreement with me. Let us stay with the facts of the debate please.

 

[Rippon]

I have never read from the other "bibles," and I have been a Christian 35 years.

That's a real shame. You don't know what you're missing.

The way that the liberal minded Baptists continue to malign people that only read and study the KJV

That's the second time you have said that foolishness. You deem those who prefer other versions to liberal-minded Baptists. That is quite unwarranted.

makes it appear that they are jealous of our ability to be grounded in One Book that represents to us the Word of God.

I am glad that you profess to be grounded in the Word of God. However, the KJV (of any stripe) is not the sole representation of the Word of God.

 

[Cutter]

That's a real shame. You don't know what you're missing.

Hmmm..Let's see. I believe my answer is the same as the following riddle.

What the poor have that the rich need, though if you eat it, you will die.
It is more evil than the devil, but greater than God. :laugh:

 

[Trotter]

The way that the liberal minded Baptists continue to malign people that only read and study the KJV makes it appear that they are jealous of our ability to be grounded in One Book that represents to us the Word of God.

There is no maligning anyone because the prefer and use the KJV that I have seen. I keep seeing some post that, but I still haven't seen it done. Care to point a few examples out to me, since it is apparently happening left and right?

I'm not jealous in the least. I have the word of God right here in any of several different translations. You believe that the KJV is the only word of God and I don't, and that's just fine. but when you or anyone else starts insinuating that those of us who do not adhere to just the KJV do not have the word of God, or that we do not have the inerrant word of God... well, that ain't fine. Until someone can show where, in the scriptures, that God says that the KJV is His sole repository of His word for the English language (since the claim is so specific it must surely be laid out thusly for us) many of will stand and oppose anyone who tries to force that man-made doctrine. If someone can ever produce said scripture (since God said it it must be in the bible somewhere) I will gladly follow said doctrine.

Basically, trying to use a man-made idea as the measurement for God's word is foolishness, no matter who you are. If the bible doesn't say it then it is from the thoughts of man.

 

[Winman]

There is no maligning anyone because the prefer and use the KJV that I have seen. I keep seeing some post that, but I still haven't seen it done. Care to point a few examples out to me, since it is apparently happening left and right?

Really, you haven't seen anyone insult KJVOs? How about this?

On another board, some not-too-bright KJVOs are advancing the argument that newer versions are part of the "Genesis 3; Yea, hath God said..." corruption. Let us see just how SILLY their argument is!

I kinda take that as an insult. This next comment borders on insulting as well.

on a more superficial level, it's obvious that KJBOists are the very ones going around to people reading non-KJB Bibles and insinuating, "Yea hath God said."

non-KJBOs accept the KJB as God's Word. but the KJBOs question our Bibles.

All you have to do is go back several posts.

 

[Trotter]

Good point on the quote, Winman. That would be insulting to me, too.

The third one doesn't sound like an insult to me, though. The second line of the last quote is an insult to me as I have been told that very thing here on the BB on several occasions... each and every time a KJVO starts on about the KJV being God's only word.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... A better argument is that Satan (the serpent) altered God's word by adding the one word "not".

God said, "thou shalt surely die" (Gen 2:17)

Satan said, "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen 3:4)

I don't think changing "thou" to "ye" is an issue, but Satan added the word "not" which absolutely changed the meaning of what God said. ...

There is no evidence that Satan was attempting to quote God here. Satan was not adding or changing God's words; Satan was merely making his own statement.

 

[Winman]

There is no evidence that Satan was attempting to quote God here. Satan was not adding or changing God's words; Satan was merely making his own statement.

That's nonsense. The very first question the serpent asked Eve was, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

Satan was quoting God right there, except he altered God's word. God never said they could not eat of "every tree" of the garden, he actually said they could eat of "every tree" with the one exception of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

So you see, Satan altered God's word right there by adding the word "not". He also added the word "not" when God told them that in the day they eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they shall surely die.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

And this is how you can identify any cult or heretic, they will either add or diminish from God's word.

Deut 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now everybody knows the KJV and the MVs do not have the same content. The MVs have omitted many verses and words found in the KJV.

You have only two possibilities, either the MVs diminished or took away from God's word, or the KJV added to God's word. But these widely differing versions cannot not all be inerrant at the same time. And none of the MVs agree with each other, so if any of them are inerrant, it can only be one version.

 

[franklinmonroe]

That's nonsense. ...

That's not nonsense.

Now, am I misquoting you or making my own statement?

 

[Dr. Bob]

Well why not another foolish thread by foolish gullible people who have swallowed the Adventist lies. Too bad.

Sadly, the Byzatine family of copies of copies of copies of copies of the same error got magnified over the centuries.

Additions of piety are frequent. Matthew records an event and says "Jesus Chirst". Mark records the same event and says "Lord Jesus Chirst". What happens? When the scribe is copying the next 50 times thru Matthew he adds "Lord".

It isn't like some evil documents TOOK AWAY "Lord" from one and not another. That would be stupid. If it were a satanic attack, "Lord" would be missing from all of them.

In grad school I did a study paralleling Shakespeare's works. Not a single copy (from only 400 years ago) of the "originals" is available. But copies used as scripts the same year as it was written were compared to copies of copies of copies of copies from only 100 years later.

Only in a couple cases were words missing or "verses" omitted. But thousands of ADDITIONS were found.

This is why the man-made copies NEAREST the source are far more accurate than are man-made copies a thousand years later.

Praise God for His divine preservation of His EXACT words (not translations into other languages)

 

[Winman]

Well why not another foolish thread by foolish gullible people who have swallowed the Adventist lies. Too bad.

First of all, this thread and the one on Inerrancy you closed were both started by folks who are not KJVO.

Second, you misspelled Christ (twice) which is amazing for a preacher.

Third, none of the original autographs exist any longer, so according to your belief there is no inerrant word of God in the world today and God did not preserve his word. You can't say that all copies must be error and say God preserved his word at the same time. But I don't expect you to comprehend that, you are too busy insulting people.

 

[TomVols]

Regardless of who starts them, we all know who hijacks them :tongue3:

none of the original autographs exist any longer, so according to your belief there is no inerrant word of God in the world today and God did not preserve his word.

Actually, that's your belief. Don't bear false witness. It's unScriptural.

The liberal, anti-Bible tripe never ends from the KJVO sect, does it?

 

[Dr. Bob]

First of all, this thread and the one on Inerrancy you closed were both started by folks who are not KJVO.

Second, you misspelled Christ (twice) which is amazing for a preacher.

Third, none of the original autographs exist any longer, so according to your belief there is no inerrant word of God in the world today and God did not preserve his word. You can't say that all copies must be error and say God preserved his word at the same time. But I don't expect you to comprehend that, you are too busy insulting people.

(1) I close absurd threads and those that go past 10 pages. BB Policy, bro.

(2) Appreciate you mentioning the transposition of letters. With my disease (as I've explained a hundred times, but hey, some are s-l-o-w) it happens. It must go back over every sentence and try to correct it, but sometimes miss them. I just praise God that with no nerves in my feet/legs and only 20% functioning in hands/arms I can still type at all.

And God is glorified in my weakness even if you glory in degrading His will for me.

(3) The original autographs do not exist (praise God - we'd have baptists as well as catholics building shrines over them). But the INSPIRED WORDS, the actual Word of God, is fully here. I'd encourage you to get a N/A/A Greek New Testament and see them. Every Word. None lost. All preserved as God promised.

Now it takes a funcitoning brain to be able to evaluate the texts, because of man's errors and additions and make sure what you are using ARE the actual God-breathed Words. That does eliminate some here for sure.

Nowhere, however much the onlyists whine, is there any indication, implication, or inference that God would change His modus operandi and ditch the inspired God-breathed words and exchange them for archaic Jacobean English. That is so absurd that even the Adventist who came up with the heres, false doctrine, have abandoned it.

And how "Baptists" (not sure of the accuracy of that label) could adopt a false teaching abandoned by the cults is beyond the pale. You couldn't write a fairy tale so absurd.