Does older mean better?

[preachinjesus]

And this is where the KJVO argument has to go, a subjective argument based on personal perspective and denying scholarly arguments from, otherwise, friendly theological schools.

To say the KJV is trustworthy because of "400 years of spiritual fruit" is entirely false basis for supporting its continued veneration and also empirically wrong as other translations have flourished across these 400 years making the KJV only one of many helpful translations...which BTW only applies to English speakers.

I'm not at my resources currently, the holidays tend to drive my out of town. I'll see what I can come up with re your previous reply to me Jordan.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

And this is where the KJVO argument has to go, a subjective argument based on personal perspective and denying scholarly arguments from, otherwise, friendly theological schools.

To say the KJV is trustworthy because of "400 years of spiritual fruit" is entirely false basis for supporting its continued veneration and also empirically wrong as other translations have flourished across these 400 years making the KJV only one of many helpful translations...which BTW only applies to English speakers.

I'm not at my resources currently, the holidays tend to drive my out of town. I'll see what I can come up with re your previous reply to me Jordan.

The basis of my King James Only Position is largely based upon the rejection of the textual criticism movement that has its roots largely in German Rationalism of the 1700s... when you follow people like Tichensdorf, Wescott, Hort, all the way down to Nestle and Alland... the whole movement started off with people doubting God's ability to preserve his words.

I challenge anyone to read David Clouds book "the love of the bible"
If you can read that and still remain a proponent of modern translations...then I would consider listening to your thoughts.

http://www.wayoflife.org/publications/books/for_love_bible.php

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

"most of the textual scholars from the 19th-century on were rationalists who denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture. "

-David Cloud.

 

[Rippon]

"most of the textual scholars from the 19th-century on were rationalists who denied the infallible inspiration of Scripture. "

-David Cloud.

Let's start to list some living New Testament scholars that I know something about:

Philip W. Comfort
D.C. Parker
Daniel Wallace
Maurice Robinson
Robert Mounce
William Mounce

The above clearly do not fall into your demeaning characterization. Or rather Mr. Cloud's which you have bought into.

 

[Rippon]

Jordon, does it bother you that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic? If it doesn't bother you, why not? Shouldn't you be consistent in your criticism?

 

[jonathan.borland]

when you follow people like Tichensdorf, Wescott, Hort, all the way down to Nestle and Alland

Ok, you just misspelled 60 percent of the names you listed. And KJVOs wonder why people don't take them seriously. BTW, modern textual criticism never says that the readings of the earliest surviving manuscripts are always better than those in the later ones, except for maybe Comfort.

 

[go2church]

The argument that modern scholars are bad, KJV is best based on better manuscripts fails every test of common sense. Use the KJV if you want, but arguing for Onlyism requires a leap into misinformation, circular reasoning and bad exegesis - go there if you like, but I'll not be joining you.

 

[Scarlett O.]

by faith, I can't point to anything else that would be the preserved word of God in English. the KJV has 400 years of spiritual fruit.

So longevity = perfection and onlyism?

Is that why you dismiss the English Bibles prior to 1611?

What about the fruit cultivated from the Tyndale, Coverdale, and Geneva?

You do know why the Geneva was halted in its publication?

Modern Version users don't believe God has preserved his word anywhere... I have a hard time accepting by faith that God's preserved word is in an ever changing multitude of versions based on a constantly changing greek text.

That's not true. As Van has just said in another thread, we believe the originals to be God-breathed and inspired and the translations to be faithful, trustworthy and reliable.

To get the full meaning and power, translations should be compared, studied, and corrected when necessary. None are perfect, but all are scripture and the Word of God - as the translators of the King James claimed.

God has and will keep His Word alive forever. Isaiah 40:6-8 says so and Peter reinforces that in the New Testament.

Forever means from the time it was first inspired, not from the time of the King James AV.

If Psalm 12 is about the preservation of God's Word in the form of the written word and ALL of the collected works, then it is talking about from King David's generation. He is the one who was inspired by God to pen those words.

King David said "they" would be preserved from this generation forever. "This" means David's generation, not King James' generation. David had no clue of King James nor was he prophesying.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Let's start to list some living New Testament scholars that I know something about:

Philip W. Comfort
D.C. Parker
Daniel Wallace
Maurice Robinson
Robert Mounce
William Mounce

The above clearly do not fall into your demeaning characterization. Or rather Mr. Cloud's which you have bought into.

But they are following in the footsteps and following the theories that were laid down by the rationalists.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jordon, does it bother you that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic? If it doesn't bother you, why not? Shouldn't you be consistent in your criticism?

Erasmus works were all pretty much banned by the Catholic Church including his Greek New Testament. Erasmus was not your typical Roman Catholic.

from "The Love of the Bible" by David Cloud. Pg 53:

"Eramsus was an enigma. He could be named as "Mr Facing Both Ways" on the one hand, he continually and publicly rebuked many of Rome's Blasphemies and spoke of the glory and sufficiency of Jesus Christ. While it is possible that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic until his death (Though he spent time with Protestants and died in their midst) it must never be forgotten that Erasmus did something that was not characteristic of the typical 16th century Catholic:he desired to the place the bible into the hands of the common man."


Even so what's your point?

The King James bible is not even based on Erasmus Textus Receptus, though his text is very similiar to the text the KJV is based on.

 

[preachinjesus]

And now we've swung around to the "attack the 19th century scholars" Maginot Line if KJVO defense.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

And now we've swung around to the "attack the 19th century scholars" Maginot Line if KJVO defense.

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Foundations are very important.

Considering that current textual criticism is largely based on unbelief and rationalism.. the foundation of it all is like a man building his house on the sands.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Foundations are very important.

Considering that current textual criticism is largely based on unbelief and rationalism.. the foundation of it all is like a man building his house on the sands.

Many believers currently practice textual criticism, and do you really think that men like Mill and Bengel and Tregelles and Tischendorf were steeped in unbelief and rationalism?

 

[Deacon]

I've a confession to make

I've been hiding this from all of you on the BaptistBoard for years.
I'm so embarrassed to say it.

I'm KFCOnly!

Popeye's is a modern perversion.

Rob

 

[Van]

Hi Rob, as I learned on Laugh-in, many years ago, KFC buys only the best chickens, they steal the rest.

 

[Logos1560]

the philosophy behind modern critical texts is in fact that God has not preserved his word, but that we must restore it.

Modern Version users don't believe God has preserved his word anywhere... I have a hard time accepting by faith that God's preserved word is in an ever changing multitude of versions based on a constantly changing greek text.

Is the philosophy behind KJV-onlyism the assumption that God has not preserved the exact, specific original language words that He gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles so that they had to be regiven or restored in 1611?

The KJV was made of a good number of textually varying sources with its makers not following any one Old Testament source 100% or any one New Testament source 100%.

The English text of the KJV has been constantly changing from 1611 until today

 

[Logos1560]

I challenge anyone to read David Clouds book "the love of the bible"
If you can read that and still remain a proponent of modern translations...then I would consider listening to your thoughts.

I have completely read David Cloud's 1995 book For Love of the Bible and over 100 other books by KJV-only authors, and none of them present a positive, consistent, logical, sound, scriptural case for a KJV-only view.

 

[Logos1560]

Just because manuscripts are older.. does that really mean they are better and more reliable?

Just because an English translation is older, does that really mean that it is better and more reliable in every one of its renderings?

 

[Yeshua1]

Just because an English translation is older, does that really mean that it is better and more reliable in every one of its renderings?

Shouldn't a good translation be one that is written in the style and language of whatever time period that it is being translated?