• 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!

Did God Die In 1611?

RaptureReady

New Member
Originally posted by robycop3:
Faith in WHAT??????????????????
Faith that God did preserve his word for us today. I believe this is in one book, you however believe this is in many books. I believe that your few is confusing. Why do I have to have all those books to have God's word? How do you chose which one is correct? And don't say the original source text, because we don't have the ORIGINALS. Does all the versions agree with each other? No they don't. So why would this one have God's word and the other not? Because if this one says this and the other says that, they are not the same, so how do you pick?
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So why would this one have God's word and the other not? Because if this one says this and the other says that, they are not the same, so how do you pick?
How do you pick between the 1611 AV and the 1769, they are not the same so how do you pick?

HankD
 

David J

New Member
Faith that God did preserve his word for us today. I believe this is in one book, you however believe this is in many books. I believe that your few is confusing. Why do I have to have all those books to have God's word? How do you chose which one is correct? And don't say the original source text, because we don't have the ORIGINALS. Does all the versions agree with each other? No they don't. So why would this one have God's word and the other not? Because if this one says this and the other says that, they are not the same, so how do you pick?

Proof? You can not prove this statement. So are you saying that the Geneva Bible is wrong also? Can I pick up a Geneva bible and it be the pure Word of the Most High?

Earth to Homebound....the Wycliff, Vulgate, Bishops, Geneva, AV1611,1873KJV, KJ21, NKJV, TMB do not agree with the 1769 KJV.

Your basis for thinking that the 1769KJV is perfect lines right up there with the modern speaking in tongues movement! It's all based on emotional reasoning and taking scripture(in your case you have yet to provide this info) out of context. The tongue speaker will always take us to the book of Acts to justify the unscriptual babel while the KJVOist(for the most part) will run to Psalm 12:6-7. Do you see the problem with your statement? I see that you give me the same spin as every Mormon that I have talked to. Not to be hateful, but you are running neck to neck with those in gross error my friend.

And this is were we differ. If I believed that the translators were the only ones behind the King James Bible, I would be more inclined to believe the modern version. I however believe that the translators were inspired by God, even though they did not know this. Just as John did not know that he was Elijah in the bible. I believe that inspiration stop after the King James Bible though. Why? Because God saw fit to put his word in the language of the day. That language is still here today except for some different word spellings and some words that may not be used by everyone.

This idea is nothing but Roman Catholism at its best. That statement is nothing but KJVOism version of Ex Cathedra in the purest form of the word. This is the most unfounded statement that you have made so far. You can not even tell us why the AV1611 even existed if what you say is true about the 1769(or whatever revision you apply this to). Why did the AV1611 exist if it was not perfect? If the AV1611 translators were inspired by God then God made a mistake OR the KJVO Camp is in gross error because they use a perverted and/or corrected KJV! Statements like you made only hurt your KJVO agenda. So did God make a mistake in 1611 or is the KJVO Camp in error?

You can believe that lie if you like but I will stand by what those "inspired" AV1611 translators when they wrote the following:

“Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee haue seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee vttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by euery Translator with the like grace, nor peraduenture so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, euery where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verum vbi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee haue made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and louely, though hee haue some warts vpon his hand, yea, not onely freakles vpon his face, but also skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.”

and

“Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled...[that] it hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there, to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinal points that concerne saluation (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearfulnesse would better beseeme vs than confidence. . .and to resolue upon modestie....There be many words in Scripture, which be neuer found there but once. ..there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves...so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in thejudgement of the iudicious) questionable, can be no lesse than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures; so diuersitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded....They that are wise, had rather haue their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.”

The above was wrote long before the modernism of KJVOism can into being by the hands of the SDA BW and D. Fuller.

I don't have anymore time to waste on you since you have proven that you are not interested in the facts. I will pray that God leads you into all truths and that you will see as I did that KJVOism is nothing but a man made doctrine that has hurt the cause of Christ.

Sorry to sound hateful but there comes a time when we must kick the dirt off our feet and move on.
 

Archangel7

New Member
Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HomeBound:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

So pick up your King James Version if you must, but remember that it's a *translation* of a Greek source text, and as a translation must always submit to the final authority of that original source text.
Then please show me the original source text and I will correct myself. </font>[/QUOTE]The original source text for this verse (2 Tim. 2:15) can be found in *any* Greek NT, since *all* of them are 100% in agreement. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, I looked at a strong's concordance with greek and hebrew lexicon, the word is question is spoudazo {spoo-dad'-zo}(4704) which means, to hasten, make haste, to exert one's self, endeavour, give diligence, so I stand corrected.
However, it's also used in the AV elsewhere, endeavour 3, do diligence 2, be diligent 2, give diligence 1, be forward 1, labour 1, study 1. With this said, it looks like it could be either study, diligent, or any of the other words above. But, my God decided to use study and that is the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God that I believe to be true. Oh, it also makes better since.
</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but it was the *KJV translators*, not God, who decided to render the Greek word spoudazo as "study." You can choose to stand by the translation of men; I will stand by what God originally inspired as my final authority.
 

Archangel7

New Member
Originally posted by HomeBound:

...no one has proved me wrong about the King James Bible being the inpsired, infallible, inerrant word of God. How do I know this, because the originals are not around to be 100% sure, therefore, you cannot refer back to them.
If this is true for the original Greek text, it's also true for the original text of the 1611 KJV. The original text of the 1611 KJV isn't around, so we can't refer back to it to determine which of the many different KJV's that have rolled off the press since then is the correct one. On the other hand, if we can use textual criticism to determine how the original (and now lost) text of the 1611 KJV read, we can also use textual criticism to determine how the original (and now lost) text of the Greek NT read.

(Alternatively, if we can "know by faith" which version of the KJV is right, then we can "know by faith" which version of the Greek NT is right.
)
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by robycop3:
Faith in WHAT??????????????????
_________________________________________
Homebound:Faith that God did preserve his word for us today.

I have that same faith.


I believe this is in one book, you however believe this is in many books.

Right. The proof is in front of me.


I believe that your few is confusing.

What's so confusing about it? There have been several versions in use throughout most of the history of the Bible in English.


Why do I have to have all those books to have God's word? How do you chose which one is correct?

That's what we ask KJVOs every day-BY WHAT CRITERIA do they pick-n-choose ONE version from all those available & declare, "This is the ONLY valid one!" ?


And don't say the original source text, because we don't have the ORIGINALS. Does all the versions agree with each other? No they don't. So why would this one have God's word and the other not? Because if this one says this and the other says that, they are not the same, so how do you pick?

All the Gospels have different narrations of the same events. Do you believe ALL of them? Samuel, Kings, & Chronicles each has a different narration of the same events. Do you believe ALL of them?

Differences within one ms or one set of mss have much more weight than do differences between sets or "families" of mss. besides that, the OT differences have been known for some 2600 years, but all the books mentioned have remained Scripture all that time. using these FACTS as one guideline, it's EASY to accept more than one version, keeping in mind that different men write different things in different times and places.

The fact that God apparently chose NOT to preserve the originals should make the KJVO stop and think that He has chosen not to freeze His word into only one version so that He might easily provide it in different languages and update it as the languages change. After all, God is Creator and Master of all languages as well as Master of His own word. It is HE who allows/causes language changes and who causes his word to appear in the languages as they change.

Remember my posting this before?

John 3:16, proto-English, C.995 AD:

?God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif."


What if God had not updated His word since then? Could you have read it in the common English of a thousand years ago?

The KJVO myth simply has no support.
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Originally posted by HomeBound:
Faith that God did preserve his word for us today. I believe this is in one book, you however believe this is in many books.
That is perfectly acceptable to me. You have faith in "one book" (which KJV you say if fine with me) as the preserved Word of God.

None of the others have faith in "many books". That's a red herring and unrelated to the discussion.

What we have is faith in as the "perfectly preserved Word of God" are the Hebrew/Greek documents that are the source for English translations.

Is that acceptable to you? Or would you say I am in error and DON'T have the truth?

This is usually the case with the "only" sect, who want ME to accept their position but they will not accept mine.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
Questions for the KJVOs: why the KJV (any date)in particular? Why not the Geneva Bible, Tyndale, Darby or Schofield reference? How did you arrive at your decision? Were you brought up that way, persuaded into that view by someone else, or undergo a revelatory Damascene conversion on the point?

Yours in Christ

Matt
If the answer you are looking for is that I went to some school and got educated in the bible, then I will have to disappoint you, because that has never happened.

I was raised using the King James Bible, first in a SBC church and finally in a Independent Fundamental Bible Believing church. My pastors believed and preached from the KJB. They said that it was God's inspired, infallible, inerrant word to us in the English language. As you know, I still believe that to this day. I've seen the preaching of this Bible change lives, obviously it is the Holy Spirit that does the changing, but if were not for the preaching of the word of God, we would not be saved, for faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Everything we know of God is in the Bible and I don't think God would allow something corrupt to talk about him.
</font>[/QUOTE]Ah, so presumably if you were brought up using the NIV, you'd make similar claims for that version then?

Yours in Christ

Matt
 

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
Everything we know of God is in the Bible and I don't think God would allow something corrupt to talk about him.
The so-called Modern Versions talk about God, so they are not corrupt after all?
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by David J:
I believe he NASB is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of the Most High in that it is a translation
No, it is not. How would you read 4,000+ NON-inspired, not preserved words in the NASB? How would you dare that 4,000+ adulterated words are the Words of God?
:rolleyes:
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by Archangel7:
(2) From the earliest times, Alexandrian scholars *as scholars* had an interest in preserving the purest form of the text.
Who were Alexandrian scholars? Please name them for me.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Askjo:No, it is not. How would you read 4,000+ NON-inspired, not preserved words in the NASB? How would you dare that 4,000+ adulterated words are the Words of God?

And how do YOU know what's adulterated & what's not? Just saying, "It aint the KJV" won't work.
 

Askjo

New Member
Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Askjo:
There are 5 categories: 1. adds various things 2. changes various things 3. non-masoretic text 4. non-TR and 5. omits various things.
Please list them for us. </font>[/QUOTE]For example, NASB changed:
city to gate
father to sons
flesh to man
suffered to died
brethern to beloved
chains to pits
And more...
 

Craigbythesea

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David J:
I believe he NASB is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of the Most High in that it is a translation
No, it is not. How would you read 4,000+ NON-inspired, not preserved words in the NASB? How would you dare that 4,000+ adulterated words are the Words of God?
:rolleyes:
</font>[/QUOTE]Dear Askjo,

Thank you for posting to the Baptist Message Board and expressing what you believe. As you would probably be one of the first people posting to this board to admit, there are very many people these days who are saying things that simply are not true. Therefore I have learned the importance of checking out what people say, to find out if it is true or not. The NASB is my favorite translation of the Bible, but it is not perfect. And because I frequently recommend it to others, I would like to know the cold hard facts concerning ANY faults that the NASB may have. So I am asking you as a fellow board member to share with me all the verses in the NASB that you have personally checked out and found to include any errors of any kind. Please list the verses one at a time and indicate for each one the specific errors. If you don’t have time to do this for the whole Bible, please list as many verses as you can, especially from the New Testament, that you have personally checked out and know for certain contain errors. Thank you!

Because He lives,

Craigbythesea
 

David J

New Member
No, it is not. How would you read 4,000+ NON-inspired, not preserved words in the NASB? How would you dare that 4,000+ adulterated words are the Words of God?

Evidence? I read and study from the NASB. Please list proof! If not then stop attacking and slandering the Most High as found in the NASB.

I find it odd that so many KJVO's get in an uproar and attack a very conservative translation like the NASB. I'm sure that the NASB(1995) does have some errors just like the KJV has errors in the text. Every doctrine etc... is found in the NASB that is in the KJV. Its' one thing to point out textual errors in a version, but it's another thing to lie and slander just to attack a translation because it's not the KJV.

I'm not the one claiming perfection in the form of one text. So what if the NASB has an error. It does not take away from God's message as a whole as found in the NASB. If YOU can call the KJV(which ever revision that you apply perfection to) perfect when Acts 5:30 is in error(should be slew by) and in 2 Peter 1:1(should read God and Savior)then the NASB is just like the KJV in that it is the Word of God preserved in modern English.

Until you present proof in context then your statement is nothing but an unfounded lie. Have you read the NASB or are you just saying what you have been taught?

Then again as in the past, you have proven to be a waste of time. Now run along and find some KJVO author like the Eternal Sonship denying G.A. Riplinger etc... and see what you can find!

By the way, how many non-inspired words are in the current KJV when compared to the AV1611? I'm sure that you will spin out of this question.
 

Archangel7

New Member
Originally posted by Askjo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Archangel7:

From the earliest times, Alexandrian scholars *as scholars* had an interest in preserving the purest form of the text.
Who were Alexandrian scholars? Please name them for me. </font>[/QUOTE]For the most part we don't know their names, just as we don't know the names of the vast majority of scholars and scribes throughout history who have laboured on the preservation and transmission of texts. We do know of Aristarchus (c. 216-145 B.C.), whose name is associated with the preservation of Homeric texts, and Origen (c. 185-254 A.D.), who preserved the text of the LXX.
 
Top