Finally, an answer to the KJV issue!

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Wayne:
Hi Brian,Yes I see your point.

I really don't think you do. Suppose you lived in 1611, and were there when the KJV was first published. Now suppose someone who used the Geneva Bible and believed it was the "word of God" came up to you and said exactly the same words to you as you said to me, except in opposition to the need for the new "authorized version" instead of the need for the NIV, etc. What would you say to them?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Wayne:
Hi Brian,Yes I see your point.I am sure there have been many good Bibles throughout history because I don't think God would leave us dangling & wondering.

Yes. And in complete contradiction to one of your later points, the KJV came along when there were perfectly readable and accurate versions already in print. Many people rejected the KJV in favor of the Geneva Bible until the Church of England acting with the authority of the British throne made it illegal to print, bind, or distribute any other version. It became the Authorized Version by virtue of the authority of the British monarch and his claim to prelacy over the Church of England, not because it was chosen by God.

What I am saying is that He has given the people many different Bibles but only one at a time.

This is a false statement. For over 1000 years prior to the printing press, all Bibles were hand copied, all were different, yet all were accepted as scripture. None of these "versions" exactly match the KJV or TR. The idea that God providentially hands down one set of words as His Word for certain peoples in certain times has no merit at all.

The common person automatically thinks NEW is better.This is because they have not been regenerated.

This is absolute non-sense. New IS better if it is better. If it is not then it is not. Either way, one's affinity for new things has no more to do with their regeneration than another's affinity for old things.

You will ask if I believe that these NEW bibles were written by Satan.Well the better question is were they written by God.

No the modern versions weren't written by God...but neither was the KJV. The originals were directly inspired by God. All translations are the words of the translators.

Jesus Christ,the same today,yesterday,& forever.So why would He change His mind after all this time.

Then again, why would He change His mind after 1611 years? The KJV is a unique document that did not exist before 1611 AD.

If I thought God was not able to keep His Words for us to read then I think I would just give up on this religious thing & go fishing. Thanks for listening,your brother,Wayne

The ability to do something should never be confused with the will to do something. God could have preserved the original mss- He didn't. God could have prevented copyists' errors- He didn't. God could have providentially provided the printing press in time to perfectly preserve the original text- He didn't.

The question is why does the KJVOnlyists reject the method that God chose to preserve His Word in favor of the way they think He should have.

If you think that the KJV is words directly inspired by God then perhaps less fishing time and more time on "this religion thing" might be in beneficial.

 

[Wayne]

How many people today can read & understand the Geneva Bible or the original KJV 1611 for that matter.I know Bibles were hand copied,but how do you know there were mistakes made.No one alive today is an authority on the mistakes made in the KJV Bible.You can argue til your blue in the face & give all of your knowledgable answers about the Hebrew,Greek,& Aramaic languages you want.The so called Greek Scholars don't even agree.If they did then there would be no debate.I have seen copies of the originals & they are Greek to me, (pun intended).I have heard all of the arguments & they also are Greek to me.Every body has a dead man to quote.Why don't we just believe in our hearts that He who was able to raise Christ from the dead is also able to write a book,& keep it. It really isn't that hard for me to understand.By the way,I don't read the books on KJVO(pro or con)I just let my belief in God lead me.These men know less than I do because God has taken the base things of this world to confound the wise.But I am sure you would argue that the words BASE & CONFOUND are archaic & should be updated.If you look back at my first post I said I would not argue this thing about different versions so I won't any more.I have already said too much.Thanks for listening.
Wayne

 

[Wayne]

By the way you are proving that Missourri is the show me State."Faith is the substance of things hoped for,the evidence of things not seen.If everything has to be proven by some mans writings then you should spend more time in the word of God & less time reading other mens works.And I will spend less time fishing.

 

[DocCas]

Wayne, there is not doubt that we all, to some extent, rely on faith to assure us we have the word of God available to us. However, in the final analysis, the question of "which bible" is not a question of faith (doctrine) but of scholarship. I know how certain segments of the Baptist community hate the terms "scholar" and "scholarship" but, nevertheless, it takes study of the manuscript evidence and textual issues to come to an informed conclusion regarding which text is superiorior, and thus which translations are superior. After the issue of "which text" is decided, then we have to address another issue, and that is "which translation technique." That will further narrow the field to not only those versions translated from the superior text, but also to those (or that) version using the superior translation technique.

However, let me add, don't let anyone criticize you for the bible you have chosen to read, study, and follow. Nor, in my opinion, should you criticize others for the bible they have chosen to read, study, and follow. To all of us that is an individual choice. I believe the KJV is superior to the other versions, but I allow other Christians the liberty to do as they please. After all, they will do what they want to do anyway, so why should I get all aggravated about it!

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

that choice of Bible versions is an area of soul liberty is a fundamental that's often been overlooked.

we don't see Paul or Peter in the NT sneering at versions different from the MT or the Dead Sea Scrolls or the LXX. the bigger issue is how to venerate even the meanest translation as nothing less than the Word of God and to put into practice what ALL the versions teach in common.

Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
However, let me add, don't let anyone criticize you for the bible you have chosen to read, study, and follow. Nor, in my opinion, should you criticize others for the bible they have chosen to read, study, and follow. To all of us that is an individual choice. I believe the KJV is superior to the other versions, but I allow other Christians the liberty to do as they please. After all, they will do what they want to do anyway, so why should I get all aggravated about it!

[ April 23, 2002, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]

 

[pinoybaptist]

I am strictly and strictly KJV ONLY and you all can call me unenlightened, ignoramus,
dumb or whatever you think of those who insist on the KJV only, and treat me like a Pariah
if you want. I don't care.
I do not say the KJV is an inspired book, only the originals are.
But when people substitute certain words to verses
on which certain major Christian doctrines are based on, there has to be something wrong with the translation.
And when the publishers do not "italicize" these changes, like the KJV writers did with those words
they had added to complete the thought of the sentence or phrase in English, to me that is dishonest and misleading.
Daniel, there are no more lost souls to be evangelized and saved, otherwise Jesus would have failed in His purpose of redemption, but, there are churches with members that need instructions in righteousness and there are sheep Christ will bring into His churches that need the same instructions from their undershepherds.
Personally, I believe the KJV will be the best book for instructions.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

skewsme, but whom was this post addressed to?

who's this Daniel?

Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
I am strictly and strictly KJV ONLY and you all can call me unenlightened, ignoramus,
dumb or whatever you think of those who insist on the KJV only, and treat me like a Pariah
if you want...Daniel, there are no more lost souls to be evangelized and saved, otherwise Jesus would have failed ...

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
skewsme, but whom was this post addressed to?

who's this Daniel?

The original poster (See page one)

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

guess u're right, Chris!

i was wondering where that martyr's complex was coming fr--don't remember anyone treating anyone else as pariahs or calling names, except for one oblique reference to a poster as "stupid."

Originally posted by Chris Temple:
The original poster (See page one)

 

[ddavis]

When I first seen the title of the thread I thought maybe the Lord had come back. because that is the only way this issue will be saved, baptized, sanctified, justified and raptured!!!!

 

[tyndale1946]

Pinoybaptist said:

I do not say the KJV is an inspired book, only the originals are.

I do not belive that a Primitive Baptist brother would make a statement like that. To say that is to say that God never preserved his church and Pinoybaptist I know you don't believe that!

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

I and I pray my Primitive Baptist brethren are with me in agreement on this that the KJV is the inspired word of God. Personally I'm not concerned with what the other brethren not of my belief read, study, and preach from. My brethren I am very concerned because the KJV has been the only Bible allowed in the Primitive Baptist pulpit since the day it was published. Those brethren may not have been called Primitive Baptist but their doctrine and principals were what the Primitive Baptist believe to this very day.
When I'm no longer in the land of the living they can bury me with my tried and true KJV. If they want to come to my house and take it away from me.
They are going to have to pry it from my cold dead hands. I'm only addressing this to brethren of the Primitive Baptist and they know our stand on the church and the KJV... Brethren there is no middle ground... Brother Glen

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by Forever settled in heaven:
skewsme, but whom was this post addressed to?

who's this Daniel?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pinoybaptist:
I am strictly and strictly KJV ONLY and you all can call me unenlightened, ignoramus,
dumb or whatever you think of those who insist on the KJV only, and treat me like a Pariah
if you want...Daniel, there are no more lost souls to be evangelized and saved, otherwise Jesus would have failed ...

</font>[/QUOTE]member #1097. page one of these postings.

 

[tyndale1946]

Pinoybaptist you need to check your Articles Of Faith. Here is Little Bethany Primitive Baptist Church in San Diego second article of faith.

2. We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the written word of God and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We consider the King James Version as orthodox and accept no other... Brother Glen

 

[pinoybaptist]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Pinoybaptist you need to check your Articles Of Faith. Here is Little Bethany Primitive Baptist Church in San Diego second article of faith.

2. We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the written word of God and are the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We consider the King James Version as orthodox and accept no other... Brother Glen

Tyndale1946:
I agree with the first part of your creed.
With regards to the second part, I looked up orthodox at dictionary.com and here is the definition I think describes what your article of faith means.

Or"tho*dox\, a. [L. orthodoxus, Gr. 'orqo`doxos; 'orqo`s right, true + do`xa opinion, dokei^n to think, seem; cf. F. orthodoxe. See Ortho-, Dogma.] 1. Sound in opinion or doctrine, especially in religious doctrine; hence, holding the Christian faith; believing the doctrines taught in the Scriptures; -- opposed to heretical and heterodox; as, an orthodox Christian.

If this is the case, I also agree that the King James is orthodox. Sound in opinion or doctrine, worthy of being used in our age as the only rule of faith and practice.
However, if you say that the King James Version is the inspired word of God, I am sorry, we part ways. The Holy Scriptures are plain:

2 Peter 1:21 says, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The translators could not have been the holy men of old that the Holy Ghost inspired. They aspired to faithfully translate the scriptures into the English Language. Yes. But they were not the original inspired writers so their translation is not inspired.
I can point you to just one error in their translation to prove they were not inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. Check out Romans 8:16 for yourself. We, including the translators, all hold and believe the Holy Spirit to be a Person, the third in God's Triunity, and not a thing, and yet, KJV's have constantly had this verse written as,
"the Spirit itself...." instead of the correct "
the Spirit Himself..." ! Explain that.
I will never possess, read, or use any Bible version except KJV and only KJV. I am dogmatic, if you will, on this, but you will have a hard time convincing me that the same inspiration that the original scriptures had are passed on to the translation.
If you next tell me that Baptists and Primitive Baptists have always held that the KJV is the inspired word of God, then I will ask you, were there no Baptists (from whom Primitive Baptists descended) before 1611 ?
If you say yes there were, then my next question is what version of scriptures were they using ?
If you say no, then, you will have to review your roots.
It is sad that the two of us, both PB's, are the ones arguing on this board.
Personally, I have no respect at all for other translations.

 

[tyndale1946]

If you are using that scripture to show an error then you are wrong. If one is wrong then another could be wrong. The KJV is the inspired and infallible word of God without reservation. God preserved his inspired infallible word up to and including the KJV. You gave a chart on another thread that included the Waldensian brethren. Did you know that the inspired, infallible word of God those brethren also had, and the KJV came from their bible? Their bible was the inspired infallible word of God and so is the KJV. Every translation held by brethren sound in faith and doctrine leading up to the KJV was the inspired infallible word of God... Traced doctrinally by the church of God!... Enough said!... All the PBs know now where I stand!... Brother Glen

[ April 23, 2002, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Their bible was the inspired infallible word of God and so is the KJV. Every translation held by brethren sound in faith and doctrine leading up to the KJV was the inspired infallible word of God...

But how can these be infallible if they differ from the KJV? Why did the KJV correct them, why was the KJV even needed? How could there be more that one infallible Bible at the same time - is God the author of confusion? Did these other Bibles stop being the word of God?

 

[Chris Temple]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
If you are using that scripture to show an error then you are wrong. If one is wrong then another could be wrong. The KJV is the inspired and infallible word of God without reservation. God preserved his inspired infallible word up to and including the KJV. You gave a chart on another thread that included the Waldensian brethren. Did you know that the inspired, infallible word of God those brethren also had, and the KJV came from their bible?

This is demonstratably untrue, as Doug Kutilek shows. The Waldensian Bible was a translation of the Latin Vulgate:

After quoting Robert Robertson's remark about Peter Waldo's having "procured a translation of the four gospels from Latin into French" (Ecclesiastical Researches, 1792, pp.462-3), William Jones added: "The Latin Vulgate Bible was the only edition of the Scriptures at that time in Europe; but that language was inaccessible to all, except one in an hundred of its inhabitants. Happily for Waldo, his situation in life enabled him to surmount that obstacle . . . .[H]e either himself translated, or procured some one else to translate the four Gospels into French," (History of the Christian Church , vol. II, pp.7, 9, 10; 5th edition, 1826).


Noted church historian Augustan Neander wrote regarding Waldo: "[H]e gave to two ecclesiastics, one Stephen de Ansa, a man of some learning, the other Bernard Ydros, who was a practiced writer, a certain sum of money, on condition they would prepare for him a translation of the gospels and other portions of the Bible into the Romance language, which one was to dictate, the other write down," (General History of the Christian Religion and Church , vol. IV, pp. 606-7, 2nd ed., 1853).


The Waldensians having produced this translation, "sent delegates from their body to pope Alexander the Third, transmitting to him a copy of their Romance version of the Bible, and soliciting his approbation as well as that of their spiritual society," (Ibid., p.608). It is highly unlikely that the Waldensians would have submitted such a version to the pope for approval if it were not Vulgate-based.


Baptist historian Thomas Armitage records: "He [Waldo] employed Stephen of Ansa and Bernard Ydross to translate the Gospels from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into the Romance dialect for the common people," (History of the Baptists , p.295).


J.J. Herzog, in his extensive article, "Waldenses," reports: "A very natural desire to know what the lectiones, the recitals from the Vulgate, really contained, led him [Waldo] to procure a translation of them into the vernacular tongue, the Roumant, a Provencal dialect; and as he felt the great use of a guide in studying the Bible, the translation of the Bible, or of parts of it, was followed by translations of extracts from the Fathers," (A Religious Encyclopedia, edited by Philip Schaff, vol. IV, p.2471, 3rd edition, 1891).

See The Truth About the Waldensian Bible

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
Every translation held by brethren sound in faith and doctrine leading up to the KJV was the inspired infallible word of God...

Why were different translations okay before the KJV but not after? What changed? Please cite the scripture to support this position.

Are you saying that doctrine that you consider to be sound determines what is or is not a good versions of scripture? I think that good doctrine comes from a Spirit guided study of a good Bible version.

Also, are you saying that only KJV users are doctrinally sound? Or that all doctrinally sound Christians use the KJV? If so, please cite your scriptural support for this view.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Every translation held by brethren sound in faith and doctrine leading up to the CEV was the inspired infallible word of God...

why not

[ April 24, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Forever settled in heaven ]