Doctrine verses "Versions"??

[Phillip]

What I see is nothing but circular reasoning (mentioned many times before, put this is possibly even a tigher circle.)

The KJVO argument here seems to be that the KJV is the only legitimate version because it is the only one that says something, so it must be right to the detriment of all others. This is not a legimate argument.

Not only that, it seems the KJVO crowd uses the older English to their advantage when they try to interpret it to fit their requirements.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Bro Tony:
There can be no discussion or even a legitimate debate with an irrational person. You guys should have learned by now to ignore POR, because he clearly does not know what he is talking about and will just use ad-hominem attacks against you. You all really ought to wait until there is at least a KJVOist who is rational.

Bro Tony

Very true, Bro Tony, but don't you think it is a little difficult to to debate with a rational person when their stance is so irrational.

 

[AVL1984]

Originally posted by Phillip:
What I see is nothing but circular reasoning (mentioned many times before, put this is possibly even a tigher circle.)

The KJVO argument here seems to be that the KJV is the only legitimate version because it is the only one that says something, so it must be right to the detriment of all others. This is not a legimate argument.

Not only that, it seems the KJVO crowd uses the older English to their advantage when they try to interpret it to fit their requirements.

The truth of the matter is this, Phillip, the KJVO's have been asked to prove that any version denegrates the major doctrines of the Bible. As you can see...no one has done it yet, though POR has tried to bring in an non-issue. I have studied all of the major doctrines held by Christianity (mostly from a Baptist perspective)in not only the KJV, but the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV, etc., and have found that all doctrines are intact in all of them. It aggravates the KJVO (militant sect) to death that they are there and that the militant KJVO doctrine doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Maybe we should have Dr. Bob, C4K, and Pastor_Bob list the doctrines and fundamentals and judge the imput, not allowing the thread to be hijacked by either side. Maybe this will once and for all put an end to the craziness ......Nah...I doubt it.

 

[Bro Tony]

Very true, Bro Tony, but don't you think it is a little difficult to to debate with a rational person when their stance is so irrational.

Philip,

You have just stated the unspoken reality of this whole issue. And if KJVOism wasn't so damaging the irrational responses from irrational people on an irrational issue would be funny. But in reality it is tragic.

Bro Tony

 

[Phillip]

So, POR, question for you:

Name one single "doctrine" that is not shown in the (pick one), I'll use the NASB......?

Show verse and passage. It has to be a doctrine that will not be found anywhere in the NASB. and I DO mean a doctrine, not a few changed words in a verse.

Thanks

 

[Dr. Bob]

Some will say that by having some modern versions say "He" and the KJV say "Jesus", this somehows is a DOCTRINAL issue. Of course, that's not true. These do NOT denigrate the deity of our Lord.

99% of Bible scholars agree that Ps 12 does NOT teach preservation of the Word of God. But all agree that other verses DO teach it and that God HAS preserved His Word.

I'm trying to think of DOCTRINES that are truly impacted. I will start a separate thread seeking such.

 

[AVL1984]

Thank you Dr. Bob....that will be a very interesting thread.

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Some will say that by having some modern versions say "He" and the KJV say "Jesus", this somehows is a DOCTRINAL issue. Of course, that's not true. These do NOT denigrate the deity of our Lord.

99% of Bible scholars agree that Ps 12 does NOT teach preservation of the Word of God. But all agree that other verses DO teach it and that God HAS preserved His Word.

I'm trying to think of DOCTRINES that are truly impacted. I will start a separate thread seeking such.

I wonder why 99% of men that have gone to school to learn how to translate bibles would agree on such a divisive topic as this...

On another note, 99% of car salesmen say you need to buy a new car every 3 years or less.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Pslam 12 is NOT a divisive topic. It says what it says and only a few folks are trying to change and make it say something that the Hebrew (or the English) don't say.

Preservation is NOT a divisive topic. God promised to preserve His Word.

 

[AVL1984]

Yes, he did, Dr. Bob. But, the questions are...did He say He would preserve it word for word, and did He promise to keep it in one Anglican Translation?

Side note...Dr. Thomas Strouse, according to a report published by Way of Life Literature, says that Ps12:6-7 does indeed refer to the words of God and not the righteous people. I don't understand Strouse's reasoning of the English here.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Bro Tony:
There can be no discussion or even a legitimate debate with an irrational person. You guys should have learned by now to ignore POR, because he clearly does not know what he is talking about and will just use ad-hominem attacks against you. You all really ought to wait until there is at least a KJVOist who is rational.

Bro Tony

POR provides an invaluable service. His double standards, evasion, personal attacks, etc. demonstrate the emptiness of his position better than anything we could post does.

Undecided Christian readers seeking the truth on this issue have maximum opportunity to see both the lack of merit and fruit of the KJVO position each time POR does his thing.

 

[Bro Tony]

You may be right Scott. I did not look at it that way. Thanks for the insight, it reminds me of our responsibility to stand against such dangerous teachings as KJVOism.

Bro Tony

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Pslam 12 is NOT a divisive topic. It says what it says and only a few folks are trying to change and make it say something that the Hebrew (or the English) don't say.

Preservation is NOT a divisive topic. God promised to preserve His Word.

Psalm 12:6-7 is how God promised to preserved His words.

 

[Askjo]

Dr. Thomas Strouse and Dr. Jack Moorman understand what Psalm 12:6-7 talks about. They agree each other on this passages referral to the Words, not people. They provided everyone their essay on this passages. Keep in mind that Dr. Strouse has a degree - Ph.D. from BJU (W-H University).

 

[AVL1984]

Askjo, I'm well aware of Dr. Strouse's degree. I had him as a professor at MBBC. Just because he and Dr. Moorman agree doesn't mean that they agree with the Bible on this particular section of scripture. Even the predecessors of the KJV didn't believe what Strouse and Moorman believe. That says something in and of itself. Dr. Strouse doesn't hold a degree in English, nor does Dr. Jack Moorman if I'm correct. Nor do others who hold the same views as Strouse, such as Cloud, Sorenson, etc.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Begging the question, does anyone know if Dr. Strouse believes Ps 12 teaches that only the KJV are these words?

He has the right (or wrong) to believe that Ps 12 speaks about words, but where do we make the Kirkegaardian leap of faith to equate the preserved "words" with the KJV?

 

[AVL1984]

Dr. Bob, I don't have the paper in front of me, but I do believe it is on the Way of Life (David Clouds) site somewhere. I believe that Dr. Strouse has stated that he believes that there is a predecessor to the KJV that is closer to the actual "word for word" than the KJV itself. I'll see if I can skim through the emails I get from Cloud and find the quotes.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I wish now I had taken Dr Strouse's bilbiology course he taught here last January.

 

[AVL1984]

You might have enjoyed it, C4K. He was an excellent teacher when I had him, though I didn't always agree with his conclusions.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I think I enjoyed my couple of days in Paris with my wife more .

Totally off topic - I know - sorry.