Disagreement

So are you saying do as the KJV eventually did--throw out the truth? Are you saying ignorance is better than the truth because it may be less confusing. Satan is certainly not confused about his plan--destruction of the truth.

 

I'll quote the following previous comments....with fear...knowing full well that Satan HAS often attacked the Word of God in whatever form it was in....Originals OR translations of them.

gb93433 said:
"So are you saying do as the KJV eventually did--throw out the truth? Are you saying ignorance is better than the truth because it may be less confusing. Satan is certainly not confused about his plan--destruction of the truth."

And

Dr.Bob said:
"So it would bother a strict KJVonly mind to see the honest footnotes in modern versions explaining textual notes. I can see Bro Perry's dilemma. These notes cause one to question the exact words of the KJV and so MUST be error."

gb and Dr.Bob...I have never believed that ignorance is good...I just don't trust those footnotes.I trust(by faith)my KJV and the truth contained therein and see no reason to question it.It is NOT a delimma for me at all...never has been...never shall be.AND...I have no problem with education..in fact I greatly respect those that have made the sacrifices and paid the price to gain a deeper understanding of the Word of God by being formally educated.God just didn't lead me that way.I do have a problem though with any form of education that leads men AWAY from simple faith in the Word of God and into a position of higher criticism.gb...what you said seems to imply that Satan has attacked the truth using EVEN the KJV.I HOPE that isn't what you meant.I have always believed that the KJV is a God,time,and fruitborn-honored faithful translation of the Inspired originals that preserves those originals in word for the english speaking people.The footnotes found in most of the MV's cast doubt on that.Therefore I don't trust them.The absolute unquestionable AUTHORITY of God's Word is and always shall be"the issue".By the way..I'm not confused at all.
I hold my position honestly.

Greg Sr.

 

Luk 9:59 (Geneva Bible):

But he said vnto another, Followe me.
And the same said, Lord, suffer
me first to goe and burie my father.

What truth does that verse contain
that this one does not?

Luk 9:59 (alternate):
But he said vnto another, Followe me.
And the same said,
suffer me first to goe and burie my father.

What requirement is there that everyone
who spake to Christ had a fully developed
sense of the Christian
Doctrines 100s of years later?
There is no significant nor spiritually
uplifing difference between the two readings.
So it doesn't matter which one uses.

 

Askjo: “That is BALONEY!! Mark 1:1 has this phrase, "the Son of God" because MORE THAN 60 manuscripts contain this phrase. The Message omitted it because only 3 manuscripts omitted it.”

For Askjo and anyone else particularly interested, here is the proper way to slice it:

“Rightly dividing the word of Baloney”:

The phrase “the Son of God” (whether as UIOU QEOU or TOU UIOU TOU QEOU of UIOU TOU QEOU) is *present* in precisely 1550 MSS (11 uncials [Aleph-corr A B D G L W Delta Sigma Phi 0211] and 1439 minuscules) -- a little bit *more* than 60!

One minuscule MS reads “Son of the Lord”

5 MSS (one uncial [055] and 4 minuscules) read “Christ of God”

12 MSS (2 uncials [Aleph* and Theta] and 10 minuscules) omit the phrase -- a bit more than 3.

Source: full collations of *all* continuous-text Greek MSS in the series Text und Textwert.

 

Now if you will share where you got the
information, each of us can choose what
we think of those sources.
Sources not contaminated by known
liars will have first priority with me.

 

Regarding Luke 9:59 this site:

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=47

says this:
"The textual evidence against the word Sir or Lord is the original B, D, and apparently only two numbered manuscripts.
The evidence in favor of the word is papyrus 45, papyrus 75, Aleph, A, B’s third corrector, C, K, L, W, Delta, Theta, Xi, Pi, Psi, family 1, family 13, and twenty numbered manuscripts."

Still, God's written word was (IMHO) so written
that men could not destroy it. So God's inerrant
written word is conserved in Luke 9:59 with
or without "Lord".

Again, what scriptural requirement is there for
enemies of God and evil men to speak only
the truth of God. Can't there be a lie in the
Bible is said by someone other God and His good guys?

 

My source was given (Text und Textwert). Do you need the full bibliographical data as well? I will be happy to oblige (most seminary libraries will have this series):

K. Aland, B. Aland, K. Wachtel, K. Witte, _Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des neuen Testaments. IV. Die synoptischen Evangelien. 1. Das Markusevangelium. Band 1,2: Resultate der Kollation und Hauptliste._ Berlin and New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1998, pp. 2-3.

Hint: you don't need to read German to use this volume, since most German text has a parallel English translation. You do need to read Greek, however.

 

No, i probably can't check it
out. I was just rattling the cage of someone
who probably is quoting Honorary Doctor
Gail A. Riplinger and thinks that constitutes
adequate scholarship.

 

Greg Sr. I am honestly asking this as a question and not trying to sound sarcastic. The KJV was translated with the apocrypha as part of its text. It was placed right square in the middle of the Old and New Testaments without any indication that it was not part of the word-of-God.

Most of the old Bibles I own (quite a few), up through about 1900 (all of my 1800 and 1700 Bibles) with the exception of a few late 1800's teacher's versions (little bitty bibles mass produced) all contained the apocrypha. It is odd that in all of the Bibles that I have purchased, I have yet to see one up through 1850 (KJV) that does NOT contain the apocrypha.

How does this fit with your beliefs that the KJV must be THE preserved English Bible? With the apocrypha included except for the last 150 years (although I understand there were Bibles without it very early, but the majority don't seem to be that way), how does this fit with devine preservation of the KJV based on its length of time since translation?

 

Is 'Baloney' anything like bologna? Just curious.

Phillip, you are correct. Most all early english bibles, including the KJV contained the Apocrypha. Instead of 60 books, they contained 80. Have you read "Trial by Fire" by Rawlings?

 

Greg...the later KJV editions usually leave out the translators' notes, such as the one for Psalm 12:7. This omission allowed the silly KJVO notion that "Ps 12:7 is about God's words" to get started. The verious translators often use the notes to explain why they used a particular rendering of a word or phrase when several were possible.

And there's the honesty issue...if a given translator or group of translators used certain mss for their work, and only some of them contain a certain word or phrase, what's wrong with their being honest about it?

 

Phillip...To be absolutely honest with you,I have no idea why the Apocrypha was included in the early KJV's.I'd be quite interested to hear some of my fellow KJV brethren comment on the possible reasons and motivations for this on the part of the KJV translators.I appreciate the "tone" of your inquiry.I never have suggested I know it all and am unwilling to learn.I just have great respect for the much-needed authority of my bible.Question...is it possible that the translators may have come under some pressure from some source to include it?Just a thought.

Next...Izzaksdad...I think you meant (66) books instead of (60) didn't you?

Also....Roby...I understand what you are saying but I still think those footnotes do damage to the authority of the text and cast doubts where none should be.It still boils down to the matter of which underlying texts were the best and I have to accept the position(by faith) that God applies His hand of preservation to protecting EVEN the translation of His Word.It is logical to conclude that whatever God does,Satan will attempt to counterfeit.His Word is definitely no different.Satan wouldn't be a very good(oxymoron!)devil if he didn't try that.
I know that none of what I said proves anything...but it is what I believe...honestly.By the way...I would like to add that while I do NOT possess the educational credentials of many of you in here,I can read and absorb material just as well as anyone.To some extent WE HAVE ALL been "indoctrinated" to believe the positions we hold.Education is a double-edged sword.Over the course of our lives we will take one position or another based on the information or "truth" which we encounter,consider,mentally and spiritually process.As Christians we are led to process much of what we believe and accept to be true from the standpoint of God-given faith.Sometimes we have to change or modify our positions or "convictions" as we progressively get more and more "information" through our study of the Word of God.I believe the position I take is based on that position.FAITH..In the Son of God...and His Word.Psalm 119:130 says "The entrance of thy words giveth light;it giveth understanding unto the simple."

Peace guys! Greg Sr.

 

Gregory Perry Sr: Also....Roby...I understand what you are saying but I still think those footnotes do damage to the authority of the text and cast doubts where none should be.

But, why? The translators are simply explaining why they made a certain rendering when several renderings are possible. They are expounding a little. After all, a translation should be as accurate as possible. Sometimes, simply translating a certain word or phrase won't convey the entire meaning.


It still boils down to the matter of which underlying texts were the best and I have to accept the position(by faith) that God applies His hand of preservation to protecting EVEN the translation of His Word.

While I certainly agree with the preservation principle, I do NOT agree that it can be applied to only ONE version. There's simply NO evidence indicating such.


It is logical to conclude that whatever God does,Satan will attempt to counterfeit.His Word is definitely no different.Satan wouldn't be a very good(oxymoron!)devil if he didn't try that.

Obviously, the devil has succeeded in infiltrating Christianity and the Baptists in particular with the false KJVO myth. Its success in dividing the brethren is obvious. Divisive or not, it IS a false doctrine that we must battle with all our resources.

 

Why am I doing this(thinking outloud to myself)...Oh well..I guess I just like a good challenge...So....Roby..

Quote:
"Obviously, the devil has succeeded in infiltrating Christianity and the Baptists in particular with the false KJVO myth. Its success in dividing the brethren is obvious. Divisive or not, it IS a false doctrine that we must battle with all our resources."

I agree that there has been division BUT not all division is a bad thing.In the Old Testament economy,God laid down some pretty extreme lines of division between His chosen people,the nation of Israel,and the heathens that inhabited the promised land prior to their arrival.In many cases He got so extreme that He had them wipe them out right down to the last man,woman & child.God does set down some definite boundaries for His children.Some divsion is necessary to maintain purity.We KJV adherents believe that that purity must be maintained in the Word of God therefore we maintain that God did that in the form of the KJV.Incidently...even I know that the english language has changed since 1611 and I personally have no problem with some of the updates in language that the KJV has gone through since then as long as they didn't change the content or meaning of the verses the changes were applied to.I'm personally glad it was done in that I'd have a hard time reading it in 1611 style english.The problem I have percieved in modern translating is in the underlying "original" texts used to accomplish it.I still believe the KJV came from the best underlying texts.There will always be division between truth and error...and that is as it should be....we just disagree on what IS truth and error in this instance.I believe that "purity" is maintained in one book....you believe that purity is maintained in a variety of different books....beyond that...as I see it...we all seem to hold to the same fundamentals.I hope THAT never changes...but I do have my fears.

Greg Sr.

 

First, thanx for being so gracious,Mr. Perry.

However, a belief must be based upon something...and I'm sure you're aware that the KJV, TR(any revision you choose out of the umpteen available) and the source mss all disagree if each was to be translated literally into a common language. Those differences, plus all the differences among the various books of the Scriptures themselves from the same set of mss, should be proof that God isn't limited to one version of His word, be it the mss or translations thereof.

Again, it's a matter of PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

 

Ed I think I'm going to be leaving the baptist board, and no you guys didn't run me off I don't like cencership of christians ( unless there is cussing involved, which I never saw ) and Baptist board seems to do this, the stopped the last thing on the KJVO issue, I contacted c4kand let him know how I felt about it, so this is my final post here for a while, I will check in and read some posts for a short time then I might just drop BB all together, I left Praize.com for disagreement on what spam is and cencership. all I saw was a little disagreement an the KJVO subject thanks and LORD Bless

 

Sorry to hear that KJV34.
But a human has to do what a human
has to do.

It has been real.
It has been nice.
A couple of times it was even real nice

Did you see this?
-----------------------------------
On a Bulletin board that says:

This is an independent, fundamental Baptist
discussion board that
accepts the King James Bible (AV 1611) as
the perfect word of God
and the final authority in all matters
of faith and practice.

I posted this:

Romanes X:9 (KJV1611):

That if thou shalt confesse with
thy mouth the Lord Iesus, and shalt
beleeue in thing heart, that God hath
raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saued.

It was edited out with this note:

"Note: Quotations from all other Bibles deleted
by the administrator."

The quote of the same verse from KJV1873 was
allowed to remain.

Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
doesn't accept quotes from
the KJV1611. Tee hee.

-----------------------------------
And here is what was posted from the
administrator of that site
on a neutral site where the above appeared:
-----------------------------------

Dear Mr. Edwards,

Laugh now while you have the chance.
You came to our discussion board knowing
our stand on the King James Bible and
yet you decided to stir up a little trouble.
You quoted Romans 10:9 from many different
bible versions trying to prove that
they all stated the same thing.
In the middle you used King James Bibles
from 1611, 1769, and 1873 trying to
make it look like they were all different.
The deletion was to get rid of your redundancy
as well as your quotes from modern versions.
So laugh all you want to because
I am banning you from our board.

/name surpressed/

-----------------------------------
Tee hee, a KJB1611 site that
bans KJV1611 quoters ???